Samsung’s Arbitration Terms Aren’t ‘Valid,’ Says Z Fold3 Class Action Plaintiff

Despite Samsung’s arguments that plaintiff Antonio Lewis’ claims must be compelled to arbitration because it provided conspicuous notice of the arbitration agreement, its motion to compel should be denied, said Lewis’ memorandum of law in opposition Thursday (docket 1:22-cv-10882) in U.S. District Court for Southern New York in Manhattan. Lewis’ putative class action alleges Samsung duped consumers into believing its Galaxy Z Fold3 foldable smartphone was more durable than it really was (see 2305020029). Samsung’s arbitration provisions aren’t “valid,” said the memorandum. Samsung argues Lewis was presented with conspicuous arbitration terms and conditions, first on the Z Fold3’s exterior packaging, then in a pamphlet inside the box and finally during the clickwrap set-up process, it said. But this presumes the elements of a contract exist, along with the absence of generally applicable contract defenses, such as fraud, duress or unconscionability, it said.